Afstan and our hopeless media

Now it's the National Post's turn to bugger things up. Excerpts from an editorial:

...Ms. Clinton lauded the capabilities of the Canadian Forces and said that while America understands that Canada’s combat mission in Khandahar will be ending on schedule, Washington hopes that we will continue to play a significant role in the effort to defeat the Taliban and develop Afghanistan into a democratic nation capable of defending its citizens’ rights...

Ms. Clinton suggested one such way to contribute: continue to field Operational Mentor and Liaison Teams [OMLTs] which see experienced Canadian troops leading Afghan soldiers in battle...

Now on March 25 it was reported that the US would like Canada to keep 500-600 CF trainers, likely in the Kabul area. Then on March 29 from the secretary of state:

["]...The military could slip more into a training role instead of a combat role, a logistics-support role instead of front-line combat,” she said, stressing that it is up to Canada to decide its way forward...

Dear Post editorial staff: Ms Clinton said nothing about OMLTs--which certainly have a "front-line combat" role--see this at middle here:

...
Canadians, Afghans beat back Taliban in 'crazy' fighting: Soldier...

Moreover, our OMLTs have been working with ANA units based at Kandahar, which the 2008 Commons' resolution says the CF must leave in 2011. It would be close to nonsensical, terribly inefficient, to move those field trainers to work with different ANA units elsewhere in the country.

Meanwhile, for those who maintain that the secretary of state somehow most undiplomatically put our government on the spot, some sense from an American who once served at their Ottawa embassy:

... the contretemps over Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's recent CTV and CBC interviews is more than a bit puzzling to U.S. observers. Indeed, Clinton followed a predictable "mantra":

- Praise for the Canadian Forces. ("... Your military forces have been superb ... we're very grateful for the service and the sacrifice of the Canadian Forces.")

- Appreciation of the political realities. ("... It's up to Canada to decide how you deploy your forces ... you've got your own considerations, and we respect that.")

- Acknowledgement that continued Canadian support would be welcome. ("We do need noncombat military forces, for example, for training and logistical work. ... We would love to have Canada stay in this fight with us.")

And what would a Canadian have expected the secretary to say? We're glad to see you go? Don't let the door hit you on the way out? Canadian Forces have been a valued and much appreciated partner in arms for the United States in many historical eras; Afghanistan is just the most recent.

But there was and has been no specific request for further Canadian Forces commitment...